Come on AMEX - be good Americans / New Yorkers and help get 2 WTC built once and for all! It’s insane that it’s still not done!
9 Likes
“You can build as much as you can finance — there is a lot of flexibility in the square footage,” a source said. A tower could be 3 million square feet or more.
7 Likes
Hoping for another redesign or going back to the roots with a financial firm on board.
In figures, the current design is made to house 2.5m sqf commercial (2.8m in the 2006 design)
Some more teasing from VH:
9 Likes
Ah, that time of year when there seems to be hope for tower 2! Hopefully it’s for real this time.
The slide deck in that second image has some interesting pictures. Slide 3 looks like it has the slanted roof of the old diamond crown; slides 6 and 7 look like a new angle of the latest design with the latter being a night time render.
The first image is nice as well. I appreciate they included KPF’s tower 5 model, as well as tower 1’s fully clad spire.
8 Likes
What diamond crown in slide 3? Its the view from hudson river; all were are 2021 views from their digital twin program, to put in context.
I like the first redesign of Foster after the Bjark Ingels tower, I don’t like the latest iteration. But my all time favorite is still the diamond shaped 2WTC.
But eitherway, let’s just hope this is the tenant the tower needs! Else any other redesign is pretty much as meaningless as the current one so to speak.
Time will tell, almost 1/4 of a century…
4 Likes
He (Silverstein) also said construction requires no additional public approvals and could begin right away on the site, which is currently used for a beer garden.
“The foundation is built to grade. It’s ready to go,” he said.
14 Likes
I love that the NY Post articles about 2WTC are always able to source huge versions of the renderings! There’s a nice clear look at the aerial view from the north-east:
19 Likes
This rendering seems to confirm what @ThreeWentDown said before
Nope it doesnt. Sorry for lack of context, but that photo was from october 2022.
I believe that both new 5 and 2 were put earlier this year, at the 3wtc ensemble.
With the anniversary coming up, sealing this deal would be monumental. 
4 Likes
Yes, so what @TK2000 is saying that as @ThreeWentDown said that the model massing is different from the render is correct.
The render is older and the model is newer.
ThreeWentDown pointed out that he hopes that the model is outdated and the render is newer, so I just pointed out that it’s likely the opposite.
Also, I checked on the numbers;
The final iteration of the diamond design had 3.1m sqf commercial (would be 3.2m sqf without the 4 mall levels).
BIGs at 2.8m, and I think 2021 figures put this one at 2.6m.
They seem to be optimistic about landing a 3 million footer too. Wondering if they’ll lower ceilling heights, modify the stepbacks, or go for a major design makeover with whatever comes to fruition.
But you just said that the render you previously posted was from 2022 and the model debuted earlier this year?
That means that the model would be showing the correct representations of everything, a model of that scale and detail wouldnt be simplfiying anything.
Not that 5WTC belongs in this thread.
The model is from earlier this year, yeah.
But the photo of that render, belongs in oct 22.
Im not sure whats your point
Yes, so the model is newer than the render still, there is no confusion there.
The model would not be representing something old if, as youve just said, that the 2 WTC model was updated. There’s no reason to believe that 5 WTC is being misrepresented since it isn’t just a mass anymore, its a fully designed building just like the current 2 WTC scheme is.
You said @TK2000 was wrong in their point.
Void arguments…
ThreeWentDown hoped that the model is outdated and TK2000 tried to confirm his point (aka outdated model) with the (hopefully newer) render I posted.
The render is 2 years old, the model is from this year, thus its the opposite.
For some reason, you decided to cement that very point, but you misinterpreted ThreeWentDown’s statement as just saying theyre different (and not that the model is hopefully older).
Not sure why you initially replied and whether you tried to correct anything but just that there’s no confusion about the timelines of these.
I dont understand how anything ive said is muddling this conversation since I have just quoted what you said, that the render is what is older and the model is newer than the render. I have not said the opposite.
Im not clarifying @ThreeWentDown whole post, Im pointing to the portion of which @TK2000 is refering to of the original post, that the model is different than the render in general, not that its outdated or simplified.
Well, i assumed that you were trying to correct anything or refer to the timeline but yea thats the right timeline 
But why are you saying otherwise, that is what I am confused about, not anything else.